Because President Obama is NOT evil; that is why many of us trust and defend him...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

A recurring question on DU from the president's detractors goes something like this:

Why is it that when Bush spied on Americans, we were all up in arms, but when Obama does it, it's o.k.?

I think I can offer a simple answer:

Because I truly believe that the president is NOT an evil man. I believe that if something is going on with the NSA, there are no nefarious reasons for it.

Bush/Cheney, on the other hand, ARE evil. They did things to the American people FOR nefarious reasons. They lied us into an unnecessary war; they did everything they could to punish those who dare spoke out against them.

I do not see that with this president. And though I do not think Barack Obama is perfect--FAR FROM IT--I do not believe that he is the boogey man. He is NOT Bush.

---------------

PRISM Program: Obama Administration Held 22 Briefings For Congress On Key FISA Law
Sam Stein
Updated: 06/10/2013 7:19 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- Obama administration officials held 22 separate briefings or meetings for members of Congress on the law that has been used to justify the National Security Agency's controversial email monitoring program, according to data provided by a senior administration official.

According to the official, the sessions that took place over the course of 14 months starting in October 2011 touched on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act, which gives the attorney general and director of national intelligence the authority to gather intelligence on non-U.S. citizens for up to one year. Section 702 has been cited by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as the legal basis for the NSA's PRISM program, which has allowed the government to track email communication data.

The Guardian and The Washington Post revealed the existence of the PRISM program and another data-monitoring action last week. In defending PRISM from criticism, Clapper stated that U.S. citizens were not, and are not, targeted for the data dragnet. He and others have also insisted that Congress has had ample opportunity to review the program and provide feedback. To buttress that claim, the senior administration official -- discussing the matter only on condition of anonymity -- sent over the following list of meetings and briefings that took place.

10/19/11: Meeting with Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Staff

1/10/12: House Judiciary Committee Staff Briefings (majority and minority separately briefed)

1/11/12: Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Briefings (majority and minority separately briefed)

3/5/12: Meeting with Nancy Pelosi

3/8/12: Meeting with Harry Reid Staff

3/15/12: Law Briefing for Senate Judiciary Committee staff

3/15/12: Briefing for Senate Leadership Staff

3/21/12: Meeting with Mitch McConnell Staff

3/23/12: Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Briefing at NSA

3/27/12: Meeting with Jim Langevin

3/28/12: Meeting with Jan Schakowsky

3/29/12: Thompson Meeting*

3/29/12: Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall Meeting

4/10/12: Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Briefing (in Virginia)

4/20/12: Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Briefing at FBI

5/4/12: Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Briefing

5/31/12: House Judiciary Committee FAA Hearing (unclassified)

6/7/12: House Judiciary Committee MEMBER Briefing (classified)

6/11/12: Meeting with Patrick Leahy Staff

6/21/12: House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing (classified)

7/18/12: Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse/Richard Blumenthal Meeting

12/10/12: Akaka Meeting

UPDATE: A spokesman for Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) confirmed that the senator was briefed on Section 702. A spokeswoman for Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), meanwhile, confirmed that the congresswoman was briefed on the subject matter, though the spokeswoman is uncertain if the exact date was the one listed by the administration official.

Much more at the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/prism-program-obama_n_3416973.html

[99Forever]

1. *

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. People praise FDR, LBJ and complain that Obama should be like these presidents...

...and yet, FDR was responsible for interment camps and LBJ lied us into the Vietnam conflict.

DU has nothing ill to say of these men even though they did horrible things to people.

[RobinA]

48. But It's Not About

good and evil. These are simplistic concepts. All these people are just people. They do good things, they do bad things. FDR did some positive things, he did some less positive things. I am quite sure that if DU were around when FDR was president there would have been plenty of discussion about some of his actions. Same with Obama. This whole issue is not about Obama, it's about what is happening now. It's the Obama defenders who have made it about the man. I speak only for myself, but on this issue I could not care less about who is in the White House, I care about the rapid erosion of our civil liberties, I am extremely opposed to it, and I think it is dangerous. While I would have hoped that a Democratic president would have put a stop to this sort of thing, I've had a lot of hopes for several Democratic presidents that have proven false, and I am sure this will continue to happen in the future. If I can muster any hope in the future, that is.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. I would argue that it is not the Obama supporters who make it all about Obama the man.

Just the opposite. Rather than pointing the finger squarely at Congress, any time there's some outrage, the detractors immediately blame Obama. You should look at all the threads that attack the man directly, his character, suggesting that he's evil like Bush. That's why I began this thread...to make the larger point.

I said it in my post and I'll say it again--I neither defend EVERYTHING Obama does, nor do I think he's perfect. I do, however, believe that he is essentially a good man (like President Carter was) who makes bad decisions from time to time, but also does GOOD things more often than not.

I think it's just the opposite when I come here on DU and other liberal blogs: it is THEY who make it all about Obama, especially expecting him to do things that he has no constitutional authority to do. They act as if he is a one-man government who controls everything through Executive Orders. That's not the way it works. Even with Executive Orders, they are useless without congressional action (through the budget). For example: complaining about Obama not closing Gitmo when he has attempted to do just that for years. Rather than blaming Republicans for obstructing and how they tried to scare Americans into believe that criminals would be released to American prisions (remember that?), they wrongly blamed Obama. Even now, they claim that Gitmo could be closed with an Executive Order, but the question remains: where would the prisioners go? Which local government in the U.S. would take them? In addition, they claim that Obama could stop sending prisioners there. Well, that's exactly what he has done while being shouted down by Medea Benjamin. As he was explaining that he has indeed placed a moratorum on sending prisioners/the accused to Gitmo, he was being rudely interrupted by Medea. On Friday night, Bill Maher allowed the claim that Obama continues to send prisioners to Gitmo go unchallenged. It is because Maher didn't know the facts. And there have been many instances where Obama's detractors--on BOTH sides of the ideological spectrum--simply cannot wait for the facts to come out before they start damning Obama the Man to hell. They make it all about him, just as the Teabaggers do. There are a lot of similarities between Obama detractors on the political left and those on the right---it is THEY who make it about Obama the Man. Not Congress. Not the Courts. Not the Republicans. Not the cowardly Democrats in the Senate. It's all about Obama himself...as if it is HE alone who controls government.

So you see: I would like to hear these detractors, just once, blame the obstructionists FIRST. I would like for them to wait for facts before knee-jerk reactions targeted squarely at Obama.

[sulphurdunn]

72. The buck stops in the Oval Office

The President is the symbol of the American government and presides over the executive branch departments and agencies charged with enforcing the nation's laws. It would be irrational to go through a list of 535 legislators to see who did what every time an executive branch agency broke the law.

[JayhawkSD]

117. Come on, the original post made it specifically about the man

"I trust Obama and didn't trust Bush."

"Obama is good and honest , while Bush was evil."

What could be more specifically "about the man" than that? And you're saying that it isn't his supporters who "make it about the man," it's his haters? Please.

What part of the surviellance is about the "obstructionists" instead of about Obama? Should we be criticizing the Republicans who forced him to do this stuff? Or did the Republicans turn him into someone who he was not originally and coerce him into thinking differently?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

142. That's right. It was about "the man" because the post is in DIRECT response to those

detractors who make it about the man. Pay attention.

[Jamaal510]

139. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Bobbie Jo]

173. Excellent post. nt

[Cha]

196. Well, that's not going to happen, LS.. as far as seeing the whole picture of

legislation and how the government actually works. Too attached to their ODS.

But, thank you for highlighting what is actually going on. I see too many ignorant posts listing "not closing gitmo" as one of the reasons they're DONE.. absolutely DONE. It's useless to enlighten them with facts. They're too brainwashed. I think they started DONE.

PBO couldn't get the FUNDING to CLOSE IT.. GOT IT. No more magic dust for you.

[99Forever]

61. Take it up with the guys who wrote this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

68. "Unreasonable" searches and seizures says to me that it's not a perfect right...

That the founders injected the word "unreasonable" is left to interpretation.

Call your members of Congress. Demand a repeal of the Patriot Act.

[99Forever]

81. Already did, more than once. Have you?

If you think that there is "reasonable suspicion" to spy on every person in this Nation, then we don't even have a starting point for discussion.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

97. Actually, I have. I am very active in politics.

And now that we're discussing solutions, let's support Adam Schiff's bill...

WASHINGTON -- The sweeping law that allows the president to wage an unlimited global war on terror would be repealed under a bill set to be offered this week.

The repeal measure, crafted by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), would end the 2001 Authorization to Use MIlitary Force, or AUMF, in 2015, as the U.S. finally exits the war in Afghanistan.

Two administrations have relied upon the AUMF to use military force in Afghanistan and around the world. They have also used the law to justify practices that lately have become more controversial, including drone strikes that have killed at least four Americans and the indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 100 detainees are currently on a hunger strike.

President Barack Obama recently called for the repeal of the authorization, saying it promotes perpetual war and grants presidents too much power. Leaders in the Senate have also called for its repeal or revision, noting that while the AUMF is supposed to target al Qaeda, the Taliban and allies who helped carry out the Sept. 11 attacks, it has been interpreted to be used far more broadly.

"The nature of the threat we face is different now," said Schiff. "The authorities that we're using are straining at their legal edges to authorize force against groups that didn't exist on 9/11 or that may be only loosely affiliated with al Qaeda."

"I think the timing is right, particularly given the president's speech 10 days ago," he added, arguing that Congress can no longer afford to "kick the can" down the road on such a vital piece of national security law, one that is now 12 years removed from the event that sparked it.

"Congress has a long history over the last decade of abdicating these tough questions because they're difficult," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/aumf-repeal-bill-war-powers_n_3416689.html?ref=topbar

[Voice for Peace]

122. I agree with you, thanks for expressing your point of view here & the OP

I haven't been able to understand why everybody is
making this about Obama when it was going on for
years before his time.

The difference now is that there are so many people
so eager to find something wrong with Obama --
(unlike when whistleblowers tried to get the
attention of the press and the public back in the
Bush years, but were ignored or laughed at) --

so now this dastardly program is getting all
kinds of attention, but the Masterminds are
nowhere to be blamed.

[RobinA]

166. When This Started

the head of government was "Bush" and Bush got blamed. I doubt he had anything to do with building the program, it seems a bit beyond his ability. Bush got blamed as long as he was the head of government. The head of government is now "Obama," so Obama's name is on the program right under Bush's. Kinda like one of those high school sports awards where they put each succeeding winner's name on the plaque. Because Bush has handed it off to Obama, it is fruitless to blame Bush any longer, he's off cutting brush somewhere. When Obama hands it off to the next president, that president's name will go on it under Obama's. Or not. But if the program continues (or gets worse) during a new administration, that administration will be the most recent name on the plaque and will be its owner until it gets passed on. Or, praise whatever deity still has any power left, finally stopped altogether. At that point (should it happen), this particular plaque will be retired, noted forever in the history books by the names of the heads of government who let in continue.

Bush, Obama, Nixon, Clinton, Carter, FDR, Johnson all catch the flack they deserve and some they don't. That comes with the job of head guy of the head nation. You also get a really cool car, free passes through red lights, your own 747, huge speaking fees when you retire, and a 24/7, all-the-stress-you-can-manage, on-call job for 4 or 8 years. Ya take the good with the bad.

[1StrongBlackMan]

195. Amazing, isn’t it …

He/she keeps posting the words of the 4th Amendment with apparently no idea what they mean. The program was enacted through democratic legislation, reauthorized through democratic action, subject to judicial review and congressional oversight … thus, the program is per se, “reason.”

[sulphurdunn]

64. This is a red herring.

FDR and LBJ are not the issue. Please don't muddy the water.

[Bucky]

82. I'm not sure which DU you're reading...

But to say there's no criticism of LBJ in this forum is not even close to being accurate.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

100. I haven't heard it. And I've not heard any criticism of FDR either. I'm on DU daily...

...and most of what I see are attacks on this president, no matter what he does.

[caseymoz]

98. That's not true.

People do say ill things about those acts. If they don't say them often, it's probably because, you know, they can't be changed anyway because they're like, history?

Your argument comes down to we shouldn't prevent current evil because past evil wasn't prevented. That doesn't sound too strong when I put it like that, does it?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

99. Actually it IS true. If I had a dollar for everytime I heard someone complain that Obama

isn't like LBJ or FDR, I'd be a rich woman. It is absolutely true.

[caseymoz]

113. That's not the part I was talking about.

You said nobody had ill to say about LBJ or FDR. But, yes, they have pointed out the internment camps and lying.

They can praise them for one thing and criticize them for something else.

And, no, that still doesn't mean you shouldn't have been halted at the time. LBJ was forced not to run again, he went on the TV announcing it in tears. In all truth, he had to account for it.

And FDR's attacks on the Constitution weren't this broad to where everyone in the country felt their 4th Amendment rights were violated. He came close in other ways sometimes, and if the country hadn't been in such a crisis and didn't have so much else to deal with, he would have never have gotten away with many of the things he did. And in fact, he was stopped several times from going to far.

So, it's completely consistent to oppose Obama on his spying program.

[sigmasix]

205. your FDR claims are partisan give-aways

For the last 40 years we've been dealing with attacks on FDR and the new deal movement from the AntiAmerican reactionary right wing. You seem to be familiar with Glenn Beck's teachings on this wonderful president that saved western economies from the ravages of unfettered capitalism and the criminally wealthy. Reagan was one of the worst presidents America has ever suffered through: he and the right wing extremists of the new republican party are the ones that began the "evil FDR" stories and welfare queen drivel, designed to begin the dismantling of American cohesion and liberties so that the RNC can enjoy a "permanent majority". Never mind that a permanent majority involves destruction of voting rights within a democracy.
The reason so many good people get confused about the workings of Obama is because we all know that America needs an FDR to finally clean the house of the evils of the criminal wealthy and unregulated capitalism. Obama is not an FDR and never claimed to be. The criminal wealthy class attempted to make FDR "dissapear" several times during his terms in office because he was successful at reigning-in the economic abuse of America by the criminally wealthy. Trying to discredit FDR as a great president is a large giveaway as to your supposed neutrality and level-headed-ness. What a joke.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

212. I didn't say Obama is an FDR, nor did I claim that he should be. Again, read carefully...

I'm addressing those people I see and hear, mainly on the political left, who have been complaining that Obama *SHOULD BE* like FDR or LBJ. Please read again.

Obama is Obama. I like him just who he is.

[caseymoz]

216. I'm certain they would be partisan giveaways

It's stalwart_liberal, die hard Roosevelt lover, who pointed out the Japanese internment. I didn't. I put that in terms of "an attack on the Constitution," because by definition, to deprive somebody of their liberty without due process is a against the Constitution.

So, did the Japanese internment take place? Yes or no?

Was it the Roosevelt administration who did it? Yes or no?

If you disagree with either one, you and Stalwart argue it out. Because it's she who brought up the historical fact you find offensive. I didn't disagree because it is a fact. I just said it was a violation of the Constitution, many times because many people were detained.

I think Roosevelt was heroic. As far as I'm concerned, what he did brought about the middle-class renaissance I grew up in. I also think he and some of his policies were terribly flawed, and some, such as the Japanese internment, blatantly unconstitutional. However, he never insisted. He always backed down when the SCOTUS overruled him.

Being liberal has nothing to do with worshiping Roosevelt and all of his works.

[enlightenment]

159. So, what you're saying is that

LBJ and FDR were men who did bad things (internment camps and Vietnam) . . . and you think Obama is like them.

Okay.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

177. No. Please read carefully. I've heard many complaints, particularly from the political left,

that Obama is NOT like LBJ or FDR. In other words, they are complaining that he SHOULD be more like them. I made the argument that FDR/LBJ, too, made bad decisions but--IN GENERAL--liberals do not seem to characterize either man as bad or evil. Let me make it clear again: while there may be some criticism of what LBJ and FDR did, respectively, by and large, you won't see people on the left tarnish their character or claim that they are bad or evil men, even though arguably they did evil things.

I don't get that when it comes to President Obama. All I see is hate all around--and it's NOT about his policies; people are attacking his character, his essential being. Again, that's why I started this OP.

Criticism of his policies is fine. I've said this seemingly a million times, but I have no problem with criticizing his actions, his decisions, his behavior. That's NOT what this particular thread is about.

I'm specifically referring to the constant *PERSONAL* attacks on the man. I've seen it day in and day out, not only on DU, but generally on the bloggosphere.

[whathehell]

115. FDR and LBJ deserve praise & I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your citing only the negatives

of those two presidents, which, in the case of FDR, especially, pale in the face of the great things they did

for the people of this country..

Although I'm less informed about LBJ's accomplishments than I am those of FDR, I do know

he fought -- and got -- very important Civil Rights legislation, and at least attempted a

"War on Poverty" through his Great Society programs. FDR has been named by presidential historians

as the 3rd GREATEST American president in history. He brought America out of The Great Depression

through a number of actions. One, he establishing a Federal Public Jobs program known as the WPA

which both built and beautified America while time employing the multitudes out of work.

He established Social Security which cut the suicide rate of the elderly in HALF. He abolished

the practice of Child Labor and, along with the first woman cabinet member, Francis Perkins, established the

National Labor Relations board which set minimum wages and working conditions, the 40 hour work

week, plus mandatory overtime for longer hours. All of this brought MILLIONS of Americans out

of poverty and built a Middle Class, the size of which, the world had never seen. Twenty years

into FDR's New Deal, America had THE LARGEST middle class in the World*

Even allowing for the fact of different eras, and some different circumstances, can you explain how PBO's accomplishments

thus far, come even CLOSE to those of these two men?


*We are now possessed of the SMALLEST middle class among all the western industrialized nations.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

136. You therefore prove my point that these are good men who just happened to make bad,

even "evil" decisions, but that didn't negate all the good things they have done.

When it comes to this president, however, any good that he does is often reduced to "not good enough" or accusations about how he only does things for political expediency.

Honestly, the high standards and expectations placed on this president--despite all the obstruction, disrespect, and downright hate coming from BOTH sides--is nothing like I've ever witnessed in my lifetime.

[whathehell]

158. I don't think so, but let's get one thing out of the way first:

As far as people "hating" him, please -- every president has people who "hate him".

It comes with the job. In addition, he's won two terms which suggest that more

people like him than hate him. My question, which you haven't answered, is what GOOD things

has he done that could compare with those of FDR?...I'm not saying that Obama hasn't done a few

moderately "good" things, but I believe he could have, even with a hostile congress, done more.

The Affordable Care Act is a good thing, but it could have been much better had he

done what he PROMISED to do, which was to include a public option. He could also have

actually LIVED UP to his campaign promises, especially those of SUPPORTING Unions,

and NOT cutting Social Security. So far he's done NOTHING for organized labor, though

unions GAVE a lot of money to his campaign, and have ALWAYS been an important part of a Democratic Agenda.

He's also been the FIRST democratic president to suggest cuts to Social Security.

It doesn't look like it will go through, but that won't be because he didn't try.

He signed the Lilly Led better Act and at least TRIED to get gun control enacted.

Getting bin Laden was good, but along with the controversial drone program, he

spends about a billion dollars a week or so on the war in Afghanistan for no apparent reason,

given we've got bin Laden and so many top Al Queda operatives.

Some other negatives are appointing BANKSTERS to supposedly "fix" the economic situation

while REFUSING to make them pay any particular penalty. He's refused to reinstate Glass-Steagal,

the law introduced during FDR's administration, which kept this country SAFE from the major

economic meltdown we suffered under Bush...He also hasn't done much for people who have

suffered through the mortgage crisis. Added to that, we now have this scandal of spying on Americans.

I voted for him three times, including the primary, and I'm not saying he's "evil" by any means,

I just think he's kind of lame.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

174. Of course every president--hell, every politician--has to deal with people who hate him.

O.K.

And your points following that--some of them are fair, others are not.

I do, however, appreciate your reasoned response rather than resorting to personal attacks. I thank you for that.

[whathehell]

184. Ok, I'm glad we see eye to eye there, and I thank you

for also being very reasonable, especially since I've actually been accused of "hating" him

because I disagreed with a few things he did or didn't do.

Hell, I like the guy personally, and as a woman, find him quite attractive.

I even got a smart phone just so I could get a ring tone of his singing Al Green!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

193. The "hate him" charge was definitely not directed at you. I've read your posts and they are

often very reasonable.

[whathehell]

194. Well, thanks so much, Liberal_Stalwart..

I feel the same about your posts, and really appreciate the compliment.

There can be so much nastiness on DU (and I admit to being guilty of it at times) that

it's a real relief when things can actually be discussed in a civil, respectful manner.

I look forward to more reasonable discussions with you.

[RobinA]

169. You Are Comparing

a current president to long past presidents. Currently, people have an opinion about everything the president does. We hear all of them because we live now. In 1965 and 1942, people had opinions about everything the then presidents did and those people heard all about them because they lived then. Most of the stuff, well-received or hated, that FDR and LBJ did day to day is now forgotten and they stand on a few goods and bads. 40 years from now, Obama will stand on a few goods and bads and all the rest will be forgotten. So yes, we don't talk much today about FDR's attempts at court packing, but you can believe it was talked about plenty in its day. Same as Obama's current stuff gets talked about, most of which will be forgotten. You can't compare what gets said about the current president and what gets said about some president back in history. I'm sure FDR looked at George Washington and wished he could be in that "could do no wrong" space that only history can provide.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

171. I'm only responding to the complaints that Obama is NOT like LBJ or FDR.

When people have made this comparison, I have typically responded that it is unfair and historically inaccurate to do so for many reasons. The main one for me is that the political culture of those eras is totally different from that of today. The political climates during FDR and LBJ's time were very different. And finally, never in the history of this great republic have we witnessed such an abuse of parliamentary rules and standards and we have seen with this Republican Party. Yes, FDR in particular faced some of that, but he also enjoyed overwhelming Democratic majorities in both chambers, as did LBJ (with some liberal and moderate Republicans).

So, I'm actually agreeing with me: I've never made those comparisons because I think they are intellectually, politically and historically inaccurate. I am responding to others who have and continue to do so.

Mainly you'll see DUers posting pictures of LBJ towering over his opponents, followed by some kind of verbal attack on the president, claiming that he "has no balls" because he doesn't stand up to people like LBJ does. Or, that FDR had federal works programs....why can't Obama do the same (even though the Stimulus Package was an infrastructure program AND all of the Jobs proposals put forth by the Democrats and/or Obama have been thwarted by the Republicans).

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

134. I agree, and you make good points. However, I have seldom heard anyone on the left

criticize FDR or LBJ for questionable acts. I'm not suggesting that there hasn't been any, but more often than not, all I hear is praise and again, complaints that Obama should be more like these two presidents.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

141. I wasn't born in the 60's or around then, but I do get your point.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

152. I agree with you, but I also think we have a responsibility to hold elected officials accountable...

including Obama. However, it is Congress that sanction these awesome war powers. We need to demand that congress exercise its oversight function, repeal the Patriot Act, support Adam Schiff's bill.

[Number23]

206. Yep. Yep and yep

[Fumesucker]

2. Then you will have no basis to complain about methods when evil again resides in the White House

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

6. Maybe not. But I stand by my statement. Flame on...

[Fumesucker]

24. Oh but you will complain, bitterly

And while most of me will be screaming there will be a part that will be ironically amused at your expense as well.

A lot of you who freely grant these powers seem like you are nineteen years old and have no memory of anything that came before.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. You don't know me. Don't lump me into a category that you think I ought to be.

[Fumesucker]

105. I was in my twenties when Nixon was forced from office in disgrace

At that time I thought there would not be another Republican president for at least a generation.

I won't make that mistake again.

[RobinA]

170. Har, Har, Har

I remember that and I am a little younger than you are.

Handwringing countrywide, "the Republican Party is dead." "No more Republican Presidents for many a year." Next thing you know it was 1980.

[graham4anything]

11. Then don't elect Jeb, elect Hillary or Cory Booker or Deval Patrick or Michelle or Janet or Kathleen

Why say that "evil" will reside???

It makes no sense

All that is needed is 100% straight democratic voting from top to bottom in every single race.

[Fumesucker]

25. "Hillary is a monster" -Samantha Power, Obama's designate for UN Ambassador

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. Well, she was during the 2008 Democratic parties. When Samatha Powers called Hillary that,

it was in response to Hillary's race-baiting, desperate attempts to garner support from working class whites.

Samantha was spot-on back then.

[Bluenorthwest]

129. During that Primay cycle, Obama employed ex gay hate preacher McClurkin as his surrogate

a man who had called us vampires. A man who had, on 700 Club, called his followers to war on gay people 'the gloves must come off, they are trying to kill our children'. When we complained, Mrs Obama told us McClurkin was her favorite gospel artist, Mr Obama said McClurkin spoke for many people and would always be at his table, if we wanted to be at the table, we had to accept being libeled.
Some context. The folks who spewed at Hillary at that time also defended and excused open bigotry and hate speech out of Obama surrogates. Even after the office was won, we were subjected to Rick Warren, who had just finished calling us all pedophiles. Here's to job your selective memory:

[burnodo]

3. this is your reasoned response?

That Obama's not as bad as Bush because he is not evil? ugh ugh ugh

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. Deal with it.

[demwing]

51. why should we "deal with it"?

Seems pretty one-sided.

Here's a thought... you don't like criticism?

YOU deal with it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

65. I'm not the one who can't deal with criticism. I started this thread. "Deal with it"

means that you'll have to accept opinions that aren't the same as yours.

I don't get all upset when people disagree with me. It's those who don't who seem to have hard time. That's what I meant by "deal with it".

[zipplewrath]

4. The powers you give Obama

The powers you entrust to Obama, are the powers you entrust to the next Bush/Cheney. You can't have it both ways. He is "The President of the United States". So was Bush.

[Kolesar]

5. That is not the question and you know it...eom

[Logical]

13. Yes it is! And you know it! n-t

[zipplewrath]

133. No, it's the answer

The quesiton is why is it wrong to empower Obama with these powers (or for him to assert them).

[graham4anything]

14. again, there don't have to be another Bush if voters keep Jeb out.

This logic is why we got Bush in the first place, because Nader said both sides are the same.
100% of the public who is democratic knows Nader was wrong and

thanks to Ralphie, never again will there be a successful 3rd party throwing the election to the non-democratic candidate

We are smart enough to know that Rand and Ron are good team players for Jeb Bush.

[zipplewrath]

49. A bush by any other name

A Bush by any other name is just as evil

There will always be evil presidents. The best our system hopes for is that we limit their powers so that their evil is controlled. When we expand the powers for presidents like Obama, we expand them for presidents like Bush.

[graham4anything]

54. The election every 4 years controls the power. The voters decide. nt.

[zipplewrath]

57. No, it doesn't

Elections determine who has the power, not what powers he has.

[graham4anything]

58. Yes it does. The US Supreme Court decides what is or isn't. Don't like the 5 bad ones? Why

why then did people vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the other republicans in, and let Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts in

actions=consequences.

[zipplewrath]

132. Establishing the precident

If you establish that these powers are "legal", the court is very likely to give deference to the Presidency on these kinds of powers. We are now told that these powers have spanned two administrations and passed by a bipartisan effort of congress. A court is very likely to be swayed by that. The SC tends to intervien where there is disagreement between courts, or between branches of government.

[Enrique]

7. that's why it's a mistake to call Bush and Cheney evil

we should leave the supernatural explanations to the fundamentalists. Our analysis of Bush and Cheney should be grounded in the real world. Same with Obama. One pretty good way to explain them is that Bush and Cheney are oil men and Obama is a Wall Street man. And oil profits hit records under Bush and bank profits hit records under Obama.

If you start with the fundamentalist premise that Bush is evil and Obama is good, then yes, you will defend every last thing Obama does and that can be very dangerous. That is actually happening to some extent, I hope people wake up.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. On the contrary: I haven't defended everything Obama has done. I defend him here

because he hasn't done anything illegal.

Call Congress. Tell them to repeal the Patriot Act.

[demwing]

59. if you think evil is a supernatural construct

You're naive.

Evil is as natural to humanity as war and murder.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. That's your opinion. Don't call names. You don't know me or anything about me.

[demwing]

80. To quote you..."deal with it" /nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

103. Deal with what? You're not making sense. Snarky comments don't count.

[demwing]

123. Your Post #65: " 'Deal with it' means that you'll have to accept opinions

...that aren't the same as yours. "

Fine. But in your post #71 you write to me: "That's your opinion. Don't call names. You don't know me or anything about me."

So I responded by borrowing your line...Deal with it.

Wait...we're all supposed to deal with your opinions, but you have no responsibility to deal with anyone else's opinion?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

137. I don't have any problems whatsoever with your opinions. We agree to disagree. I'm good with that.

[Enrique]

164. partisan politics are not good vs. evil

that "good vs. evil" framing is pushed by ideologues who want to advance extreme agendas. The RWers use it to justify excesses in our overseas adventures, and to justify extreme obstructionism here at home.

[demwing]

165. So drawing a distinction between good and evil rests in the demesne of extreme ideologues?

come on...

Murder is evil. Torture is evil. Liberty is good. Freedom is good.

You can frame that any way you like, or call me an ideologue, and I'll wear that badge proudly.

[SlimJimmy]

8. President Roosevelt wasn't evil, yet under a lawful program, he imprisoned

thousands of US citizens. Lest we forget.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. LBJ wasn't evil either and yet he gave us the Gulf of Tonkin which led to the Vietnam War (conflict)

No president is perfect is my point.

And this program IS lawful. Until Congress repeals the Patriot Act, it is lawful.

Thanks.

[SlimJimmy]

16. It might be lawful, but it's very wrong. As wrong as what Roosevelt and LBJ did.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. It might be wrong, but I need more facts first.

[SlimJimmy]

21. We'll see. But I don't have a good feeling about this one.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. We need to find a way to get Congress to repeal the Patriot Act.

[SlimJimmy]

89. Rather than repeal it wholesale, I think we should look at each provision and make

a determination as to which parts make sense, and which parts are over-reach. The FISA courts are actually a good concept. Targeting specific foreign entities upon probable cause. That was certainly the original intent, but it's gone well beyond that scope.

[JW2020]

33. If you believe that Bush is evil then you have to also believe that LBJ was evil

The Viet Nam and Iraq wars were promoted for the exact same reasons. Money. LBJ' lifelong political financial backers were the founders of Kellogg, Brown & Root, the company now known as Halliburton. Guess who got the contract to build the US navy base at Cam Ranh Bay in Viet Nam? KBR

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. And yet, so many on the so-called Political Left, argue that Obama should be like LBJ. Go figure...

[zipplewrath]

55. Obama may suffer a similar fate

It's always hard to predict legacies, and they change from generation to generation anyway. He could find himself being remembered a bit like LBJ, or even to some extent Nixon. He may be remembered not for what he probably will consider his signature accomplishments, but about the details of his Justice Department and his NSA.

[ProSense]

63. Did LBJ sanction torture?

Bush and Cheney bragged about their torture policy.

[JW2020]

75. Guess you've never heard of the Phoenix Program.

Look it up.

[ProSense]

60. It wasn't a law, it

President Roosevelt wasn't evil, yet under a lawful program, he imprisoned thousands of US citizens. Lest we forget.

...it was done by Executive Order.

Japanese American internment

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps.[8] In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders,[9] while noting that the provisions that singled out people of Japanese ancestry were a separate issue outside the scope of the proceedings.[10] The United States Census Bureau assisted the internment efforts by providing confidential neighborhood information on Japanese Americans. The Bureau's role was denied for decades, but was finally proven in 2007.[11][12]

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter conducted an investigation to determine whether putting Japanese Americans into internment camps was justified well enough by the government. He appointed the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to investigate the camps. The commission's report, named “Personal Justice Denied,” found little evidence of Japanese disloyalty at the time and recommended the government pay reparations to the survivors. They formed a payment of $20,000 to each individual internment camp survivor. These were the reparations passed by President Ronald Reagan.

In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".[13] The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.[14]

<...>

Many internees lost irreplaceable personal property due to the restrictions on what could be taken into the camps. These losses were compounded by theft and destruction of items placed in governmental storage. A number of persons died or suffered for lack of medical care, and several were killed by sentries; James Wakasa, for instance, was killed at Topaz War Relocation Center, near the perimeter wire. Nikkei were prohibited from leaving the Military Zones during the last few weeks before internment, and only able to leave the camps by permission of the camp administrators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

[SlimJimmy]

87. I didn't say it was a law, I said it was *lawful*. The executive order he issued falls

into that category. With that said, I'm sure you'd agree that it was wrong and shouldn't have been done.

[OnyxCollie]

175. The internment of the Japanese was done for economic reasons, not military necessity.

Racial antipathy and revenge for Pearl Harbor were used as structural mechanisms to convince the public that these measures were necessary, thereby gaining approval for the exploitation of a subset of the worker class by the capitalist class.

[Kolesar]

10. Three Obama supporters recommend this thread , and the "non donors"

...tear into it with puerile, off topic, asides.
8:05 EDT, Tuesday

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. Of course. I expected the response. We have so many Obama hate threads...

Figured I'd counter them with my own quip.

I fully expected this but I won't keep quiet just because people don't agree with me, belittle me, patronize and condescend, or call me names.

I'm a big girl; I can handle it.

[Kolesar]

20. Bunch of wankers multitasking at infowars and the Ron Paul forum, I expect

:big sigh:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. It's the defense of Ron Paul, in particular, that scares the shit out of me.

He's a bigot, a racist, and a lunatic.

I've noticed a lot Paulites around this forum lately.

[Whisp]

32. the defense of Ron Paul and the love for Greenwad, who loves Ron Paul.

gotta love it for it's entertainment value tho!

Obama is Boosh! Obama is Boosh!

[freshwest]

209. You nailed it. That's the source.

[Savannahmann]

26. Can you guarantee that nobody involved is evil?

Or at the least guarantee that nobody involved with this mess abuses it in any way? What is the penalty for abusing this system, this information? Tell you what. I'll get on board, if the Government agrees to make abuse of this system and the information within, a crime punishable by life in solitary confinement. Any abuse or misuse, no matter how small, automatically results in life without any possibility of parole.

The chances of that happening are negative infinity minus one.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. Call your members of Congress. Demand a repeal of the Patriot Act!!!

[Savannahmann]

50. I have.

For years now. I've written more than a dozen letters, sent to my Representative, and both of my Senators. I've argued here about the PATRIOT ACT for years. I've written about it and talked about it to friends, acquaintances, and family. I've never stopped trying to get it repealed.

What have you done besides stand in lock step with the Bush Cabal in favor of a system that begs abuse?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

73. I am very politically active. In fact I work for the federal government. If anyone should be worried

about being spied on, it should be me and others who work for the feds.

You know nothing about me. Don't make assumptions just because we disagree.

[alsame]

27. Obama is irrelevant. You have to

trust all of these people.

More than half a million private contractors can access the country’s secrets. A large degree of surprise also was related to the fact that Snowden had access to many of the documents he obtained so soon after beginning to work for Booz Allen. Once obtained, a clearance is a relatively hard thing to lose, so long as you remain employed by a company that does work requiring you to hold one. These clearances also only need to be renewed every five years while active. According to a 2013 report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a total of 483,263 contractors held Top Secret clearances in 2012, the highest level one can obtain, with another 582,524 holding them at the Confidential and Secret levels.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/06/10/2127511/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-intelligence-communitys-contractors/

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. I agree with you. Obama is irrelevant. Call members of Congress. Demand a repeal of the Patriot Act!

[freshwest]

210. They passed it, they fund it to this day. Despite Rand Paul's circus, he didn't stop it.

CODE PINK sent him Valentines and drooled over him and blew big sloppy kisses - and for what?

Nothing, is what.

He is promoting himself for president in 2016. Those who love him won't vote, so the Teabaggers can win in 2014 and likely didn't vote in 2010.

We have nothing to thank them for.

Which goes to show they don't care about the lesser people's rights at all and can drop a pretense of being progressive and liberals because those work with the government for change, not destroy it by not voting.

Or ratfuck nonstop, which is their way of encouraging others not to vote, same thing in the end. The Democratic Party is the party of good governance, helping the poor and ending discrimination.

The GOP, Libertarians and Paulites are the opposite.

Anyone who doesn't decide, has still made their choice to support the status quo of the Koch brothers at the GOP and the Libertarian and the Rand Paul for President bunch.

Ugh.

[hobbit709]

28. I don't trust ANY politician. There are some I distrust less than others.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. You make a good point. Politicians are politicians, but I definitely trust Obama more than most.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. Thanks. I can appreciate that.

[Whisp]

30. It's been a while since a decent person was in the Whitehouse.

I would say Carter was the previous to Obama.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

42. I agree. Carter is an amazing man. A man before his time.

[cali]

34. I don't think he's evil. I think it's stupid to overuse the word evil, however

Disagreeing with the President on policy doesn't mean one thinks him evil. duh.

[Puzzledtraveller]

45. The defenders have finally dropped their pretense

It was never about agreeing with the NSA revelations, because the next thing was to discredit Snowden at all costs. Now we know it was just about Obama to them, they think we are attacking him and calling him evil and they don't like that. It's how sensitive and protective they are of the person and nothing to do with principle.

[Ter]

37. I don't trust him at all

I don't want him knowing anything about me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. This is not about Obama. Call members of Congress. Demand a repeal of the Patriot Act!!

You don't have to trust Obama or any politician. But you have a responsibility to hold politicians accountable. Demand a repeal of the Patriot Act.

[ProSense]

66. Yet, you

"I don't trust him at all"

...trust Ron Paul, and with our financial institutions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002127090#post9

Yikes!

[Ter]

221. Yeah, and?

I trust who's best for the job. Let's say Mitt Romney loves cats, had them all his life, and has 7. Let's say President Obama never had one, and just had dogs. I would say that Romney would make a better president of Cats Incorporated. His Republican positions of other things would not come into effect here.

Likewise, I want to abolish the Federal Reserve. Who else better to run it than someone who has dedicated his life to exposing their lies? He's be an amazing Chairman of the Fed, much better than one of the highest ranking members of Shadow Government that's in there now, Ben Bernanke.

[leeroysphitz]

44. Evil? lol

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. Call your members of Congress. Demand a repeal of the Patriot Act. It's not funny. Never was.

[Bluenorthwest]

167. I'd like to ask you to call my members of Congress and thank them for keeping these issues

in mind and attempting to open debate about them for years. Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley, Peter DeFazio. You don't need to make demands, you can thank them and encourage them. Udall as well.
I wonder if you have ever done so, or posted anything in favor of their actions around these security issues? If not, then allow me to point out that Merkley is up for reelection in 2014 and financial support is the political Candygram. Send one today.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

176. I've done what you have suggested. For instance, I am very lucky to have two fairly progressive

senators and a liberal for a representative. Even though they are on my side, I have thanked them for their service.

And in fact, this may come as a shock to you, but I run into Bernie Sanders quite often during lunch. When I'm able to catch his attention, I thank him for all that he does and has done.

I'm actually pretty politically active. Always have been.

I appreciate that we can come to some agreement on remaining engaged in the political process.

[Laelth]

47. Sure. I don't think Obama is evil, neither do most Democrats.

But the polling on this subject shows strong partisan bias of the kind you display in your OP. Republicans don't mind the government having this power when they control the White House. Democrats don't mind the government having this power when they control the White House. It's a pretty simple partisan divide.

But the Bill of Rights was written to secure the liberties of the minority. Jefferson feared the tyranny of the majority, and, when considering issues related to the Bill of Rights (i.e. the 4th Amendment), I think we should concern ourselves with the minority point of view. If Democrats don't like it when Republicans have this power, then the power should be stripped away from the government if said power impacts the minority's Constitutional rights. That, I think, is the proper way to look at this issue. It's the most Constitutionally valid approach, in any event.

-Laelth

[GoneFishin]

52. So our failure is our poor application of circular logic.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

76. No. Your failure is ascribing supernatural powers to a human being. Your failure is failing

to wait for the facts before damning an individual.

Your failure is not holding Congress accountable.

If you're so concerned about rights being violated, call your members of Congress. Demand a repeal of the Patriot Act.

[GoneFishin]

163. You don't need super powers to nominate agency heads that advocate for the people rather

than the corporations they lobbied for, were on the board of, or were high level executives of.

[DCBob]

53. Yes, that is how I feel.. plus the fact that what President Obama is doing is actually legal

Bushie/Cheney couldnt care less about laws and rights and regulations.

[dkf]

56. Giving the Government this power does not end with Obama. You are trusting all future Presidents.

Also all hackers, and all NSA agents.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

78. So then let's put our energy into doing something about it. First, give the president an OVERWHELMIN

majority in BOTH the House and Senate.

With Democrats controlling both chambers, demand the repeal of the Patriot Act!

[dkf]

83. Many Democrats have become part of the problem.

There's not enough Ron Wydens and Bernie Sanderses.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

104. And that's why I emphasize that we should elect more *progressives*...

[sibelian]

67. It doesn't matter whether or not he is "evil".

What matters is that his actions direct the fates of millions of people. However admirable his personal characteristics may be, they are secondary in importance to the consequences of his decisions.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

79. Agreed. That's reasonable. Let's agree, then, to stay active. Give him overwhelming majorities

in both chambers. Then, demand a repeal of the Patriot Act! Only the Congress--not the president--can strip presidential war powers and exercise oversight over these programs.

[sibelian]

110. I think that's an excellent idea.

I have no interest in ousting Democrats. My favoured position is Democrats that answer their base, as Republicans answer theirs.

[morningfog]

69. Whether Obama is evil is irrelevant. He will not be president forever.

I trust NO ONE with these powers. Not bush, not Obama, not the next president.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

86. Agreed. And if that is so, call Congress. Demand a repeal of the Patriot Act.

Then, let's work together for an overwhelming PROGRESSIVE Democratic Party majority in BOTH chambers of Congress.

Too many people make it about Obama. It's really not. Get Congress to exercise its oversight and check presidential powers.

[Egalitarian Thug]

70. All that says is that you are gullible. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

84. Nah. It says that I wait for the facts before I condemn people. It says that I am reasonable.

Not hysterical.

[Egalitarian Thug]

88. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool me 47 times, and I'm just a fool.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

95. Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. What are you going to do about it? Vote Third Party?

I trust it years ago. Didn't work.

[Egalitarian Thug]

102. We've been working on our solution for years and it's almost ready.

It has nothing to do with voting or politics at all.

Good luck, you're going to need it.

[emulatorloo]

121. Ah the glorious revolution then.

I thought that was going to happen during the Reagan years. But it didn't work out that way.

[Egalitarian Thug]

126. LOL! You couldn't be more wrong.

Neves servant!

is my motto

[LaydeeBug]

74. He won't be president forever. We must stop this. nt

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Hissyspit]

77. What a terrible defense.

Evil/Not Evil?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

85. Your opinion. If you care about protecting your rights, call members of Congress. Demand a repeal

of the Patriot Act!

[Autumn]

90. Of course Obama isn't evil, He's a good man.

But in November 2016 he will no longer be President. Do we trust the next President?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

145. No, and that's why we need a Congress who will exercise oversight and reduce these

presidential powers.

Support Adam Schiff's bill to do just that...

[G_j]

91. Nobody is evil.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[CRH]

92. You give the government that type of power, ...

when you can't regulate who the next captain will be? Wait for the SC to install the next Cheney, or the puppeteer of US politics to rig the election for Jeb and company. Then reexamine your levels of trust and judgments of evil.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

101. No, WE give government that type of power. If you want to change it, call members of Congress...

demand a repeal of the Patriot Act. And also demand that Congress pass bills that strip the president of various war powers.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. A clarification about why I started this thread addressing the premise of "evil vs. good"

For several years--not just weeks--I had witnessed, read and encountered threads that have directly attacked the president's character. Many threads and posts called the president "EVIL", weak, a coward, a many with no balls, "just like Bush," etc.

So when I started my thread, I started it by attacking the premise "Obama is evil like Bush" that has been shouted around this forum now for several years.

So when people are asking about why I'm addressing the concept of "evil", that is why. I am directly this argument to those who have made this specific charge against President Obama.

The larger point, however, when it comes to this whole NSA issue:

If we're so concerned about NSA snooping, then we have a responsibility to call members of Congress and demand, not only a repeal of the Patriot Act, but also that they exercise their oversight function. In addition, if so concerned, pass bills that drastically reduce the president's war powers. Congress has the power to do this, but too many people have made this about Obama and how horrible he is, hence, this thread.

[Bluenorthwest]

135. Can you support that assertion? Got any examples of that which you see all the time for

years, but don't quote or cite? You are directing an argument at all of DU which you claim in in reaction to posts you do not cite. You say you respond to a 'specific charge'. Specific? What you are doing here is the opposite of specific, it is unsupported claims about 'people' who exist only as characterizations authored by you.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

138. I will take a while for me to search for that, but I guess I could do it if I had enough time.

On the other hand, I do not believe for one second that you have NEVER encountered or witnessed any post, thread or invective of ANY kind that has attacked this president personally. Let me clarify: this is not about constructive criticisms of the president. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about incidious remarks about the president--the man--name calling, offensive language, suggesting that he is worse than Bush. I refuse to believe that you've never seen that here or elsewhere on the liberal bloggosphere. You wouldn't be honest if you told me that you've never seen that kind of rheotic on the left.

[Bluenorthwest]

153. The way to clarify is to support your claims about others, claims you made and expanded

upon and yet when asked you can not produce. You said "Many threads and posts called the president "EVIL".
Your claim is that this OP is a specific reaction to these 'many threads and posts' that bothered you so much you can not remember any of them. You say you want to 'clarify' but you were asked for proof of your assertions, which should be easy as you say you've seen many, for years. Demanding that I have also seen that which you claim to have seen is cute, but it does not support the assertions YOU made. And I do not recall reading that Obama is evil here, in fact I would think that is ppr level materials. I'd alert if I saw it.
The fact that you said 'many called the President EVIL' and can't prove it does not mean you can now pretend you said 'any kind of personal attack' you very specifically claimed the word 'evil' was used many times, threads, posts the works.
You used specific and clear terms to make your assertions and accusations, to do so without offering support in the OP was already lazy and divisive. Many threads and posts that called him 'evil'. Many. Threads and posts. Evil.
You said it. It is for you to support your accusations. So I asked you to. You refused.

[Bluenorthwest]

154. What you said, what I responded to:

"So when people are asking about why I'm addressing the concept of "evil", that is why. I am directly this argument to those who have made this specific charge against President Obama".

[lame54]

96. Now, let's all light up

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

106. I need it right about now.

[lame54]

109. Don't let Obama catch you

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

143. You mean, don't let his Justice Department catch me. It's not always about Obama.

[lame54]

178. The crackdown has been a lot harder under this pres than the last...

Obama can control this

[DisgustipatedinCA]

107. Expanding the already-largest spy program in history far beyond what Bush did

...is OK with you? Is not OK with me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

148. See my response, #146. Demand a repeal of the Patriot Act and support Adam Schiff's bill...

[caseymoz]

108. So, you can't possibly be duped?

You feel well-informed that evil doesn't deceive? You know 100% looking at somebody that they're good and evil. And you know 100% somebody who's good today isn't going over to the dark side tomorrow? After you can't retract the powers given?

Those are huge assumptions. Especially when you're entrusting so much power.

Checks and balances are written into our Constitution not only because there are evil people, but because we also can't tell who's evil at the time. The Fourth Amendment says nobody has the power to do what Obama is doing, and it doesn't say "Good people need not follow this."

I take exception to your claim. Good people would never want the power Obama is claiming. Never. The fact that he's using it should be a warning that his goodness is at least wavering.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

150. If you're concerned, please support Adam Schiff's bill and demand that Congress

exercise it's oversight funciton. Demand a repeal of the Patriot Act.

[caseymoz]

202. Since that's changing the subject

I'll take that to mean I made my point.

[panzerfaust]

111. "I truly believe that the president is NOT an evil man" Great. What about the NEXT president

The point seems lost that this not about if Obama or Bush has abrogated more civil liberties than the other. The point is that both have undertaken deliberate actions undermining the constitutional nature of our government. Both embrace what Bush described as the "Unitary Executive" - in short, that the will of the president is the law of the land.

Nixon embraced this idea - "If the president does it it is legal" - but our country was still enough of a constitutional democracy that he could see where he was going after the Watergate conspiracy (which was orders of magnitude less harmful than the Bush-Obama surveillance society) and so he resigned.

I prefer Lincoln's vision - a government of the people, by the people - to the Orwellian vision of the current, and of the previous, occupant of the White House.

Fine, you do not think Obama evil - but you are happy to allow him (and his predecessor) to destroy the checks and balances of our democracy and to turn the Bill of Rights into a quaint historical document all in the name of Protecting Freedom?

If Bush-3 becomes the next president, are you going to be happy with him having these same powers which Bush-2 and Obama have taken for the presidency? Governments never, willingly, give up the powers which they have usurped from the people - and Obama has proven to be one of the most implacable enemies of constitutional government since King George III.



The problem is not with any given president, but with the role of the president in a constitutional democracy. The United States of America is “A government of laws, and not of men," as future president Adams phrased it - and which we are forgetting to our peril.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

146. Again, if we all care so much about this "unlimited power," then let's pressure Congress to

reduce presidential war powers. Demand a repeal of the Patriot Act.

Support Adam Schiff's bill to do just that!

[Gman]

112. Obama is a prisoner of the "monster"

Anyone that thinks a president, any president can rein in the govt alone is naive.

[caseymoz]

114. Then why did he go for re-Election

Once he found that was true. And enthusiastically raise money to do it?

Sorry, he's not a victim of the machine.

[Gman]

118. Not run and what?

Prez Mitt Romney? Forget Congress. They're worthless. This entire system is fubar and bigger than any one person. Don't think the prez us a superman. He/she is only as strong as the support they get.

[caseymoz]

120. So, he did it for us? So Mitt wouldn't win?

How heroic. And because I disagree that the evidence isn't there to show he was unwilling, that means I expected him to be a superman?

No. No. He had looked at the Presidency for years. He was Constitutional Scholar at a conservative law school. He watched the Bush presidency. He was well-informed. The greatest odds are he knew exactly what was waiting for him. And he voted as a Senator, during his campaign, to keep telecoms from being sued for spying on citizens under Bush. That was signal to the intelligence community on where he stood about it and it should have warned the rest of us.

Only as strong as the support that they get? Oh, so, Obama's just a puppet because we failed to support him enough. Sorry, that's more guilt than any of us should be willing to take.

I don't buy any of that. While there's a chance what you think is right, that he's just a puppet, I don't believe that's the greatest chance. Even if it were true, he's a well-rewarded puppet, with all kinds of cash, and perks and people willing to give him resources for the rest of his life. Hardly a victim, unlike the rest of us who are on the receiving end of this surveillance program and don't have any of the compensation. In fact, we're bound to lose because of it.

[Gman]

181. In a world where this is the sole issue, I guess you're right

But it's not that simple.

[caseymoz]

200. I think I was telling you the exact thing about your view.

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Sorry. Obama has seemed to have ruled for the powerful in every important way. He wouldn't prosecute Bush, Cheney and company, he wouldn't prosecute the banks for ruining the economy and committing routine, massive fraud.

It's become clear to me now that history is going to be rough on Obama. The further in time we get from current events, the worse he's going to look.

[Gman]

218. Very well could be

[certainot]

116. no only that, but the left can't say it ever got obama's back, nor that of most dem reps

the deck is stacked against dem politicians because the left/liberals/dems continue to ignore the right's best weapon.

IMO the left collectively cannot say it ever "got obama's back", nor that of just about any other dem politician, and cannot say it now.

as long as dems continue to ignore and give a free speech free ride the right wing radio stations that take free pot shots at their reps and ideals all day long in coordination with the right's think tanks, criticizing dem reps/presidents for not undoing crap the GOP has done (much of it enabled for the same reason) is bad strategy, and unfair, to put it mildly.

RW radio has been kicking the left's ass for 25 years and there is still NO organized opposition to it. there isn't even an effort to to monitor its national and local content for repetition- the prime indicator of what the 1%'s think tanks are up to and how they're doing it.

considering the time lost on global warming it is the biggest political mistake in history. the whiners who have nothing better to do than blame obama while carnival barkers on every corner and stump on the country scream insults at them and their ideals are pitiful.

and i wonder how many of them are students at or have universities in their communities which broadcast sports on RW radio stations that scream over them and undermine everything they do ( https://sites.google.com/site/universitiesforrushlimbaugh/ ).

[JoeyT]

119. Of course he's not evil.

I can think someone's wrong without thinking them evil. I can think of people that I disagree with virtually everything they think that I don't think are evil.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

149. I totally agree with you. Reread my OP. Thanks.

[existentialist]

124. OK but

in a constitutional government it should not have to come down to whether specific individuals trust those in power at any given moment. Some will, some won't, irrespective of whether the person in power deserves that trust or not.

The idea of a constitution is to provide a basic framework of controlling law that will survive, and thereby allow the country to survive, even very bad persons in power. A Constitution is not supposed to support a good government or administration so much as it is supposed to enable the country to survive a bad one.

Therefore it is a hollow defense of Obama to say that it is OK for him to have power because you trust him if the next person to hold that power is unworthy of that trust.

This is not intended as an attack on Obama; it is intended as an attack on the Patriot Act, and his adaptations thereof.

Obama is no perfect, but I have supported him. With reservations I continue to support him.

I have stated some of those reservations.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

182. I didn't say Obama was perfect. Even if you reread my OP, I clearly state that I do not believe that

And as I've always said, there is a difference between criticizing his policies and calling the man names. This thread is about the latter.

I criticize Obama all the time. I don't agree with every decision, every action, or the fact that I think he could be a litttle tougher in terms of getting his messages across. People, however, tend to take it to the extreme by equating wrong-headed decisions with overriding judgments of the man's character and essential nature.

[existentialist]

189. I understand

I was just trying to put the focus where I believe it belongs, on the law rather than on any politician.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

127. Your argument is ridiculous -

and would only make a bit of sense if Obama were going to President of the United States forever.

Clue to the clueless: Republicans WILL be elected to the Presidency in your lifetime.

Republicans that you may not "trust". Republicans you may not want to "defend". Republicans as "evil" as Dick Cheney, as stupid as George Bush, as paranoid as Dick Nixon.

They will get into office an they will use every power Congress/we give them and some that they will simply take to forward their agenda.

I trust no one with that kind of power. And neither should you.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

183. I repeated this several times: Demand that Congress repeal the Patriot Act

Also, demand that they exercise congressional oversight over these agencies.

Support Adam Schiff's bill to reduce presidential war powers. Only Congress can do this. And even the president has asked Congress to clarify through oversight functions.

It won't work unless we elect an overwhelming majority of progressive Democrats.

You and I agree on the merits. It shouldn't get personal.

[mike_c]

128. that's generally called a "cult of personality...."

eom

[ForeignandDomestic]

130. tssk...

So what happens..... when a President gets in office that you don't like?

Do you continue your affection for the police state spy grid or do you become a hypocrite?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

151. I've addressed your snarkiness upthread. Read if you're curious for my answer.

[ForeignandDomestic]

160. Tssk..

Don't care one bit about your rebuttle, it's people like you and your ilk that spread across the America political spectrum on the left and right who are the main reason that this country is being bambozzled down this dark corridor.

You pick a political team and follow blindly, principles and common sense be damned... so all the Puppeteers aka Military Industrial Complex has to do is change political suits every 4 the 8 years to please their cult followers, all the while leading this country down the path of war and destrution, planned economic stagnation, loss of civil liberties, and so forth..

So no I care not who you consider evil.. I judge people by their actions and Obama's action as it merits to this are no different than Bush's.

Now continue arguing semantics and closing your eyes to that FACT!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

180. Tssk...

I don't follow blindly. I've explained my position throughout this thread. I can't help it if you don't read well.

You said: it's people like you and your ilk that spread across the America political spectrum on the left and right who are the main reason that this country is being bambozzled down this dark corridor.

If that's how you feel, then so be it. You know nothing about me, who I am, what I do. All you got is personal attacks and what you *THINK* about others who don't agree with your narrow views.

You said that you don't care for my rebuttle, fine. But don't then expect me to care about your views, either.

Respect goes both ways.

[OnyxCollie]

131. You're following a fallacy.

We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as
power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. That assumption
allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps a statesman-
past, present, or future-has taken or will take on the political scene.
We look over his shoulder when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on
his conversation with other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very
thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined as power, we think as he
does, and as disinterested observers we understand his thoughts and actions
perhaps better than he, the actor on the political scene, does himself.

The concept of interest defined as power imposes intellectual discipline
upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics,
and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. On the
side of the actor, it provides for rational discipline in action and creates that
astounding continuity in foreign policy which makes American, British, or
Russian foreign policy appear as an intelligible, rational continuum, by and
large consistent within itself, regardless of the different motives, preferences,
and intellectual and moral qualities of successive statesmen. A realist theory
of international politics, then, will guard against two popular fallacies:
the concern with motives and the concern with ideological preferences.

~snip~

Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge
would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well
lead us astray. It is true that the knowledge of the statesman's motives may
give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign policy
might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his
foreign policies. History shows no exact and necessary correlation between
the quallty of motives and the quality of foreign policy. This is true in both
moral and political terms.

We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his
foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful.
Judging his motives, we can say that he will not intentionally pursue
policies that are morally wrong, but we can say nothing about the probability
of their success. If we want to know the moral and political qualities
of his actions, we must know them, not his motives. How often have
statesmen been motivated by the desire to improve the world, and ended
by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal, and ended
by achieving something they neither expected nor desired?

Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (pp. 5, 6). New York: Knopf.

[Bluenorthwest]

147. If you insist on using faith terms I'll debate in those terms...can you?

You say Bush is evil. Leonardo DaVinci said 'He who refuses to punish evil commands it to occur'.
Was Bush punished? Who told us to 'turn the page, look forward not back' when the people wanted some truth and justice? Was that not refusing to punish that which you yourself name as evil? Is it allowed to let evil continue and still claim to be separate from it?
Do you disagree with Leonardo, you think that refusing to punish evil is an act of goodness? That is what your OP hinges upon, that it is acceptable to absolve great evils while at the same time punishing greatly lesser offenses. Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMD were, to sell a war. Is that not evil? Was that not left unpunished?
Who said turn the page, turn a blind eye? Who said impeachment was off the table? Executive and Congress.
Words like 'evil' are not a dead end street for reason. If you accept there is such a thing as evil people' then there must also be ethics about how that evil is dealt with. Buying evil a cocktail and dedicating the Library of Evil is not dealing with it as if it was that which you say it is, 'evil'.
I'll close by saying right wing types have been known to say LGBT people are evil with the same certainty you declare Bush evil. Do you think their certainty and use of religious words makes them right? If not, you need to expand your arguments.

[Jamaal510]

155. I can't help but be surprised at

how often you've had to tell people on this thread that Congress is the area of government that is responsible for changing the laws, not the President. Hell, even I know that the President is not like a king, and I have only been following politics for several years!
It's as if people lack knowledge about basic civics and our checks-and-balances system...

[freshwest]

211. You're a bit closer to the educational system than many posting here, I suspect Jamaal.

They either never had civics, political science and didn't learn the basics. Their world view is shaped by media imagery and they think Obama can run the whole place with a snap of his fingers.

Too bad for us, the GOP knows the process better and has been whipping us handily. They know the power of the purse in the HoR can stage an continuing counter revolution to any proposal or promise Obama has made and they have taken full advantage of that.

I believe some members are unwilling to admit the media is not what it once was, nor is it the beacon of information they think it is.They have not comprehended the fact that Obama inherited a nation that was on life support financially when he swore the oath of office that FDR did.

And they don't seem to know the history of that period and that it took more than 8 years for Roosevelt to make the changes they have depended on for years.

They likewise refuse to give up their illusions about their fire brand heroes who it turns are supported by the right.

[hamster]

156. Haters gonna hate but I have Obama's back.

It's chess, not checkers.

[ForeignandDomestic]

161. Tssk...

And sadly you're playing Connect-Four.

[SomethingFishy]

172. Ok.... now that was fucking funny!!!

[hamster]

188. President Obama's got this

He's got the dopes right where he wants them. Ropin the dopes. Just like always. Ropin the dopes.

[TalkingDog]

157. Fine. Trust him. But do you trust the next President? Or the next?

I sure as hell don't. And unless you've got a time machine or a 100% accurate psychic I don't see how you can either.

And that is the ENTIRETY of the point.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

191. Agreed. I've explained throughout this thread.

[alc]

162. precedents and systems will be used in the future

And we will likely have another Bush/Cheney in the future who will have all of those capabilities and a country that accepts them as normal.

[BlueCheese]

179. Good and evil are too simple as categories.

We can think Obama is basically a decent guy who would not knowingly abuse these surveillance programs. But he's capable of being wrong, just as FDR was wrong-- very, very, wrong-- about Japanese American internment. These NSA programs lay the groundwork for something terribly wrong happening again, whether under this president or a future one.

As for your repeated exhortations to call Congress to repeal the Patriot Act: certainly that's a good idea. But remember the president has to sign the thing for it to become law. Half of Congress is Republican, and thinks the Patriot Act is a swell idea. We had our hopes invested in the president, who at one point claimed to be on our side on this issue, and that is why we are so disappointed in him.

We are a government of laws, not of people. Nobody should have power that, when abused, would be so dangerous as the NSA programs. Obama may not abuse them; in fact I doubt very much that he will. But come January 2017, we'll have a different president. Do you want that person to have all of your phone records, and the phone records of every other American?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

185. Then, there's other things we can do. Start by supporting Adam Schiff's bill to

drastically reduce presidential powers.

Even more important, elect progressives to both chambers of Congress.

There are things we can do. It's not always just about one man.

[BlueCheese]

187. Part of it is drumming up public support for such a thing.

And that includes criticizing the current state of affairs, even if it means criticizing the current president, who seems to support all of this.

In the end, it sounds like we agree more than we disagree. Cheers.

[Rex]

186. It is very important for people to remember he is on our side.

Sure doesn't act like it at times, but the man is not evil. You want evil? Go talk to Dick Cheney...but make sure to DUCK!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

192. Thanks. Exactly my point. We can argue that he should make better decisions...

especially being a constitutional scholar and all. Still, I have to understand exactly WHY he is doing this. It's easy for us to sit and speculate, but when you're confronted with sensitive intelligence, information that could get people killed, I believe that the reasons he might be doing this *could* be justified.

Nicole Sandler, sitting in for Randi Rhodes, was furious about the NSA program and has been one of Obama's harshest critics, but even she said that we're not privy to sensitive information and that she trusts that Obama (through the NSA, of course) is pursuing this, not for *nefarious* reasons, but for rational ones.

[npk]

190. Nah. It's just that Bush was a Republican and Obama is a Democrat

Just that simple. DU has become more focused on rooting for the "team" than rooting for the country.

It's no different than being s fan of a baseball team. If the opposing team's pitcher hit's one of our batters with the ball than it bad. But if our pitcher hits the opposing team's batter with the ball, then it's "just doing what the other guy did."

Too much of that lately on these boards I'm afraid.

[L0oniX]

197. Yummmmy ...good Kool-aid.

[octoberlib]

198. I don't think Obama is an evil , orwellian ruler

trying to turn the US into a totalitarian state and I certainly don't think he's George Bush but I do think there needs to be more transparency and public discourse about this. I don't agree with any politician 100% and I don't expect to. Obama's not going to be in office forever and I'm worried about who comes after him.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

199. Your post is well reasoned. Thank you!

[HooptieWagon]

201. How do we know the next president won't be evil...

or the one after? We don't...thats why no president should have imperial powers.

[Fire Walk With Me]

203. Why in hell isn't Obama doing ANYTHING to eliminate the Bush/Cheney surveillance state laws????

What if a republican gets in again and uses them as we know they would? Why would any Democrat allow that? Why would any Democrat even allow them to continue, because it comes from evil men?

All that it takes for evil to win, is for good men to do nothing.

[liberal_at_heart]

204. sorry but that is juvenile, naive, simplistic thinking.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

213. Your opinion. Read the entire thread for context.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

207. What get me is that some dots, in my opinion, is leading to..

A spy trying to use being a whistle blower as a way to get the heck out of here.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

215. And whistle blowing only works if a law has been broken. A law hasn't been broken. ;)

[Lady Freedom Returns]

217. Yep.

But making such an uproar helped him get out.

And we have NO IDEA what he might have taken with him. He is in enemy territory.

[AZ Progressive]

208. When someone stabs you in the back in life, you'll have noone to blame but yourself

Being willfully naive is a BAD survival strategy. Hopefully you wouldn't have to learn it the hard way.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

214. I'll take my chances, but thanks for your concern. ;)

[limpyhobbler]

219. How can you be so sure he's not evil?

[Fearless]

220. Do you trust the next president?

And the next one? And the one after that?

The next republican one... The next Bush or Reagan?

Well?